Global Climate Change: The Issue in Context

Introduction

Global climate change, popularly known as “global warming,”
has the potential to greatly impact the natural environment and human society
in many significant ways. In the last two hundred years, both global
temperatures and atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases have
accelerated, compared to rates observed on a geologic timeframe10-12. While a growing body of scientific
consensus has determined that changes in the climate system are unmistakably
human in origin, a great deal of uncertainty still exists as to the extent of
future changes and impacts. The high profile of the science and its dire
implications have caught the attention of policymakers the world over. An
international strategy to address the issue has been in the works for over ten
years, although the perceived high costs of policy changes have stalled these
efforts. Still, governments at all levels, businesses, and other organizations
around the world have enacted substantive climate policies.

The basic science behind global
climate change involves many complex interactions among the chemicals and
energy of the sun, the earth, and its atmosphere10-14. Solar radiation travels towards
the earth, some is reflected immediately upon reaching the atmosphere, and the
remainder passes through. This energy is then absorbed into the climate system
– by the oceans, land, and biota, which re-emit the energy. Some of this passes
through the atmosphere but some is absorbed by the atmosphere. Since more
energy penetrates the atmosphere than passes out of the atmosphere, a natural
“greenhouse effect” heats the earth. The gases in the earth’s atmosphere that
trap this energy are known as greenhouse gases, and include water vapor, carbon
dioxide, methane, nitrous oxides, and several chemically complex gases. Without
this natural greenhouse effect, the earth would be at least 33˚C cooler.

While this natural greenhouse effect is necessary for life
on earth as we know it today, a growing consensus among scientists has shown
that human activities since the industrial revolution have resulted in an increased
greenhouse effect10-14. An international body of climate
experts, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has synthesized
this consensus into three scientific assessment reports, each with more
detailed and certain conclusions and predictions10-12. According to the IPCC, human
activities emit greenhouse gases that have raised atmospheric concentrations of
carbon dioxide by 31 percent over the 20th century. While
concentrations of other greenhouse gases have changed as well, carbon dioxide
stays in the atmosphere for tens to hundreds of years, thus impacting the
climate system long after its associated human activity has emitted the gas. This
increased greenhouse effect has led to a rise of 0.6ْC
in the global mean temperature in the 20th century. The increase has
not been evenly distributed around the world. The latest scientific assessment
report has indicated that this relatively rapid change in the climate system is
caused by greenhouse gases released from human activities, and all major
scientific studies and reviews have validated this point11,13,14.

Predicting the future is no easy
task for any scientific assessment. The large amount of uncertainty regarding
feedback effects, nonlinearity, complex interactions, and human societal
changes make predicting future scenarios for human-induced climate change
particularly problematic11,13,14. The IPCC predicts a further rise in
mean temperature between 1.4 and 5.8˚C. While the estimates and
predictions of the IPCC are accepted by the vast majority of climate
scientists, a small but vocal minority of climate skeptics present different
models for the future, based on different scenarios for growth in emissions and
the notion of a robust rather than fragile world15,16.

The impacts from this changing
climate are likely to be very severe and widespread, impacting virtually all
human and natural systems, according to the IPCC and other scientific reviews13,14,17,18. Higher average temperatures that
expand the volume of the world’s oceans along with melting polar ice will accelerate
natural sea level rise. The IPCC predicts a sea level rise of between 0.09 and
0.88 meters by the end of the next century. Low-lying islands and coastal
countries, as well as coastal communities, are particularly at risk from higher
sea levels. Millions of people likely will be displaced by the end of the next
century18. Other significant impacts of a
changing global climate are likely to include droughts, increased frequency and
severity of weather events, and extinction or migration for many vulnerable
species18-21. Fears of abrupt climate change,
resulting from such possible events as a breakdown in the North Atlantic
Oscillation, a sea temperature and salinity dependent system that determines
weather in the North Atlantic, have aroused the attention of scientists outside
of the IPCC14,22.

Growth in human activities such as
transportation and consumption, as well as growth in human population will
determine how much climate will change11,13,14. The IPCC estimates that three
quarters of anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases stem from fossil fuel
combustion. The burning of fossil fuels to create energy to power our cars,
appliances, machines, and virtually everything that runs on electricity has
become a necessary part of the modern life. This is particularly true for the
United States, the single largest emitter of greenhouse gases, whose carbon
dioxide emissions account for twenty-five percent of the world’s total23. If fossil fuel consumption
continues to rise, climate change will continue to accelerate. Consequently,
any policy designed to seriously limit future impacts on the global climate
system will involve changes in the way society generates energy24,25. Such policies will require shifts
toward renewable energy sources in addition to reductions in energy use.

The transportation sector is one of
the largest and fastest growing sources of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. The
sector accounts for 20 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions, and a
large share of its emissions of nitrous oxides and other greenhouse gases26. Light truck and automobile
transportation accounts for 50 percent of all transportation emissions26. Since the oil crisis of the 1970s,
considerable fuel efficiency gains have led to reductions in emissions of
carbon dioxide per vehicle, but these improvements have not kept up with rapid
growth in vehicle transport. In only fifty years, the global fleet increased
from 46 million vehicles at the end of World War II to 641 million in 199626. US total and per capita fuel consumption
from transportation exceeds that of any other nation, as total travel activity
in the US is larger than other nations, and US vehicles are much more fuel
intensive27. Consequently, many local,
national, and international policies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions
focus on the transportation sector.

Historical Context

Scientists
associate rising carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions with changes
in human activities over the past two-hundred years11. Since the industrial revolution of
the late 18th century, humans have generated millions of tons of
carbon dioxide through combustion of fossil fuels. Since then, technology has allowed
greater productivity and higher living standards for the countries that
industrialized rapidly. This revolution required coal, oil, and other carbon-intensive
inputs to fuel production. As a result, atmospheric concentrations of
greenhouse gases have increased18.

Recent Issues

The increasing awareness by scientists and policymakers of
climate change as a serious issue has generated an international dialogue aimed
at mitigating this threat to our climatic system26,28-30. In 1992, heads of state and
environmental ministers from around the world gathered at an environmental
summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, drafting the first international treaty aimed
at addressing the threat of global climate change31. The United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), ratified by virtually all nations,
became the framework through which further policy dialogues would take place. A
major component of this framework treaty required that all parties to the
convention submit national inventories of emissions. The framework set a goal
of reducing emissions to a level that would not be harmful for future generations,
but did not set a timetable and so this goal has neither been met nor even
credibly attempted by policy measures in most countries28,29.

Five years later the parties to the
Convention met in Kyoto, Japan to draft a Protocol to the convention that would
set emissions targets and timetables32. They set a goal to reduce world
greenhouse gas emissions by 8 percent from 1990 levels, by the first commitment
period of 2008 to 2012, to be shared among all countries that ratified the
treaty. For some countries, particularly the former communist states of Eastern Europe, this meant an increase in
emissions, as emissions there have decreased significantly since 1990. For
others, such as the United States, this meant a substantial decrease
in emissions. Legislators and policymakers in the US deemed this too costly for
the US economy, and so the US has refused to ratify the treaty33. Some contend a new approach to
international climate agreements is necessary to lead to a stabilization of
atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations through inclusion of the US34-36.

With ratification by Russia, the Kyoto Protocol will go into
effect in February of 2005, binding countries representing only 62 percent of
the world’s total emissions to emissions reductions in the next ten years37. Developing countries were exempt
from reductions in this round of negotiations in order to promote economic
development, despite their growing share of the world’s emissions. As a result,
rising emissions in both the US and developing countries will
undermine the success of the Kyoto Protocol in achieving its goal of lowering
atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.

The US has remained a part of the Kyoto process only as an observer since
2002. The predicted costs to the US economy were judged by the federal
government as too high to offset the benefits38. Other analysts argue that these
benefits (i.e., the future costs of inaction) were underestimated, and the
costs were not easily understood, and hence overestimated33. Since then, climate change policy
has taken a more voluntary form in the US39,40. Businesses have engaged in
voluntary emissions trading schemes to reduce their emissions, with tax credits
and other incentives provided by the federal government39.

At the regional, state, and local levels, innovative
voluntary initiatives have set targets and policies for reducing emissions41,42. Twenty-eight states and Puerto
Rico have created policies to reduce emissions in sectors over which these
states have significant authority, including taxation, land-use, utilities, and
transportation40. Some of these efforts comprehensively
address climate change, as exemplified by the Climate Action Plans of Maine and
Connecticut. Other initiatives, such as the California auto emissions standards, are more
narrowly focused. Many initiatives will have additional benefits, including
cleaner air and lower energy costs40. Although still in their infancy,
if these initiatives are carried out to their targets, many greenhouse gas
producing activities in the US will be under emissions limitations.

Global Climate Change: The Issue in Maine

Introduction

Global climate change will leave no area unchanged. In Maine, where so much identity and so many
livelihoods are strongly tied to the natural world, this global issue has
already impacted human and natural systems. Recent estimates of future climate
change predict even more visible and devastating effects on the state43. Early recognition of the need to
address this problem has generated a noteworthy local policy response to a
problem of global origins. While Maine cannot single handedly prevent
further degradation of its environment by climate change, lessons from its
groundbreaking approach can inform policymakers everywhere.

Maine’s traditional ties to its coasts,
weather, and wildlife make its people vulnerable to stresses in the natural
world. Current computer simulation models used to predict future climatic
changes cannot easily predict impacts at such small scale as Maine itself or even New England. However, from what broad changes
scientists can estimate from larger scale models, many predicted changes will
have spillover effects on Maine’s economy and identity44. Many of these changes will be both
costly and irreversible.

Maine’s
most noteworthy geographic feature, its coastline of 3,000 miles, traces a line
through many of the state’s communities, is responsible for millions of dollars
of Maine’s economy, and provides immeasurable symbolic value to the state. Thermal
expansion of the world’s oceans, resulting from rising sea temperatures,
coupled with melting polar ice caps, are predicted to raise sea levels
significantly by the end of this century18. People who live along Maine’s coastline will witness the
encroachment of the sea on their communities. Although scientists have been
unable to predict the exact extent of this sea level rise, the EPA estimates
that a 14-inch rise in Rockland and a 19-inch rise in Portland are both likely
by the end of this century43,45. The increased frequency and
severity of storm events will magnify the effects of a rising sea, as flooding
and storm surges will be more frequent and devastating. Although seaside communities
will have a limited ability to adapt to these conditions, vulnerable coastal
wetlands will face even greater difficulty in surviving. In the Casco and Saco
Bay areas, 10 to 20 percent of local wetlands are likely to be lost under
widely accepted scenarios46.

The cost of sea level rise to these
coastal communities is significant. A 20-inch rise, well within scientists’
estimates for the next century, would flood 80 acres of land in Old Orchard
Beach, where out-of-state tourists and Maine resident vacationers inject money
into the local economy every summer46. In some areas, where expensive
beachfront property already clings precipitously to the land, coastal erosion
and storm surges may plunge hundreds of homes into the rising sea in the next
hundred years. The cost of insuring coastal property has doubled since the
1970s; one study estimates that 286 million dollars of Maine’s insurance costs
in the 1990s were weather-related47. In addition to residential areas,
public infrastructure such as sewage treatment plants and underground storage
tanks are also at risk from flooding.

Further inland, changes in the
nature and timing of Maine’s weather will impact natural
systems throughout the state. Although scientists have been unable to predict
with certainty future changes in the amount of precipitation the state
receives, a recent study by the US Geological Survey (USGS) has shown evidence
that over the past century, Maine’s precipitation has turned increasingly from
snow to rain43,44,48. Throughout the past century, the
ice-out dates for many rivers and lakes throughout the state have occurred
earlier and earlier in the season, and river ice thickness has been decreasing49,50. Additional, unpredicted changes
are also likely to occur.

Historical Context

Fossil fuel combustion, and hence carbon dioxide emissions,
became a part of Maine’s economy more slowly than in the
rest of New
England. Traditionally,
and still to a greater extent than anywhere else in New England, water has provided Maine’s power. When steam power generated
from oil or coal reached the industrial cities of southern New England in the
1820s, the high cost of transporting the fuel to Maine and Maine’s abundant
water power kept fossil fuel power from Maine for decades51. These sources of power became more
widely used when electricity came to Maine in 188051.

On the other hand, fossil fuel use
in the transportation sector has played a major role in Maine since the first
steam-powered railroads laid their tracks in the 1830s52. By 1912, over 2,000 miles of track
crisscrossed the state, carrying passengers and cargo from York to Aroostook52. The railroad gave way to the
automobile in the early 20th century. The opening of the Maine
Turnpike, from Kittery to Portland in 1947 and then to Augusta in 1955 spurred
rapid growth in automobile use in Maine53. Highway accessibility led to a
huge expansion of Maine’s tourism industry, solidifying the
“Vacationland” image for vacationers from southern New England and New York.

Recent Issues

Policymakers in the New England and in Maine in particular have responded
quickly to the rising evidence of climatic changes to their natural systems. Soon
after countries created the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change of 1992, policymakers in the state and region were considering how the
policy tools within their jurisdiction could be used to address the problem. In
1993, Dean Marriott, then Maine Department of Environmental Protection
Commissioner, commented on the need for Maine to form its own climate change
policies, given the impacts likely to be felt by Maine’s environment and people54.

From the beginning of the 1990s, scientific and policy
collaboration among the six New England states (Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont), and the five eastern
Canadian provinces (New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia,
Prince Edward Island, and Quebec) generated a uniquely regional yet
international approach to addressing a global problem55. The Conference of New England
Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers (NEG/ECP),
recognized their similar vulnerabilities to climate change and their
interdependence through trade, transport, energy, and electricity generation. These
provinces and states committed themselves in 2001 to a plan to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions by specified targets with short, medium and long-run
timetables56.

In order to fulfill its commitments under the NEG/ECP Plan,
Maine passed a landmark bill, the Act to Provide Leadership in Addressing the
Threat of Climate Change, which required the state to draft a climate change
action plan by July of 2004 that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990
levels by 2010, with further reduction targets for 2020 and the long-term57. The bill is the first of its kind
in the nation. Drafting the plan required the Maine Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP) to work with other state agencies, industry, non-governmental
organizations, and individuals. This stakeholder process occurred throughout
2004, and the governor released the plan in December of that year.

The plan has been intensely debated among state agencies,
businesses, and citizen organizations. Lack of consensus in several of the five
working groups – buildings, facilities and manufacturing; agriculture and
forestry; transportation and land use; energy and solid waste; and
education/public awareness – has slowed the process. Environmental
organizations have resisted industry efforts to compromise the ability of the
plan to generate sound policies that will actually reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.

The possible policy outcomes from the transportation and
land-use working group are the most debated, and noteworthy possibilities from
the entire Maine climate process. Emissions from
mobile sources (transportation emissions) comprised the largest share of the
state’s carbon dioxide emissions, representing 40 to 50 percent of emissions of
this largest greenhouse gas emitted by the state, and are also one of the
fastest growing sources4. The policy under consideration in
2004 was to adopt the same standards that the California Air Resources Board,
the state agency responsible for air quality standards in that state, will
adopt58. These “Pavley”
standards require significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, including
carbon dioxide, from passenger vehicles and light trucks. The Plan included
these standards, but the legislature makes the final decision as to whether
they become law59.

Strong opposition by the automobile industry has slowed California’s adoption of its standards, and
strong opposition by the industry and by auto sellers in Maine has heightened the debate in the Maine climate action stakeholder process.
If California, Maine, and other states are able to follow through with this
bold attempt at transportation regulation, significant reductions in greenhouse
gas emissions in these areas will be possible60,61. Although these standards are only
one of the many policy responses that came from the stakeholder process, they
will likely have the greatest spillover effects throughout the nation, as
automakers are likely to adopt this single standard to reduce costs associated
with facing multiple standards, as has previously occurred with auto emissions
standards in Europe.

By itself, Maine’s policy responses will be unable
to reverse the trends in climatic change throughout Maine’s environment. But, some of these policy
responses will have positive benefits for Maine citizens, through cleaner air and
lower utility bills, regardless of their impact on reducing climate change. Maine will also be setting a precedent
for other states and the federal government, which have not addressed climate
change with a comprehensive target-setting response. The success Maine has in addressing greenhouse gas
emissions and other causes of climate change will provide lessons for
policymakers throughout the world on the ability of local responses to a
changing climate.

Indicators, Policy, and Analysis

Introduction

Many activities occurring in Maine, including
transportation, building heating, electricity generation, and forestry
practices, contribute to climate change by releasing greenhouse gases62. Trends in the transportation
sector are one of the most relevant and noteworthy for policymakers. These
emissions account for a large and still growing portion of the state’s total. The
following indicators describe the state of greenhouse gas emissions from the
transportation sector in Maine. Consumption of motor gasoline in
the transportation sector comprises the majority of Maine’s transportation emissions. Thus, this
is a useful indicator of Maine’s total greenhouse gas emissions.

I used four indicators to evaluate
the transportation emissions in Maine. One indicator measures the outcome
- increased fuel consumption as a proxy for greenhouse gas emissions. Three
indicators – vehicle miles traveled, number of registered vehicles, and the
percent of the workforce that drives to work alone - measure potential drivers
influencing the problem. The indicators express states and trends as per capita
consumption or percentages to facilitate comparison between Maine and the national average.

Policymakers have historically focused
largely on the composition of vehicles registered. Different vehicles require
different amounts of fuel to travel a given distance; hence they vary in the
amount of carbon dioxide they emit per mile. A major within the transportation
sector is whether or not to require vehicles to meet emissions standards, and
if so, what these standards should be. In general, vehicles classified as trucks
emit more greenhouse gases per mile traveled than do regular automobiles63. Because these indicators examine
factors in addition to the composition of vehicles registered, they will
illuminate potential shortfalls of focusing primarily on this policy device.

Transportation Carbon Dioxide Emissions in Maine

In Maine, the greatest contributor to
climate change is carbon dioxide emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels
in the transportation sector. In 1999, the most recent year for which emissions
data has been published, carbon dioxide accounts for 93 percent of Maine’s
total greenhouse gas emissions (in terms of carbon dioxide equivalents – a way
of standardizing these gases by their greenhouse effect potential) 11. Methane and nitrous oxide
comprised the remaining 7 percent. Fossil fuel combustion in the
transportation, commercial, residential, industrial, and utility sectors are primarily
responsible for these carbon dioxide emissions (Figure 1). According to the US Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), the transportation sector accounts for 45 percent of Maine’s fossil-fuel combustion-related
carbon dioxide emissions. Other major sources include residential and
industrial emissions.

From 1990 to 1999, transportation emissions exceeded
industrial and residential emissions, the second and third largest sources
during this period (Figure
2). Industrial emissions approached transportation
emissions in the mid-1990s but decreased in importance by 1999. Meanwhile,
residential emissions (produced from the burning of oil and natural gas to heat
homes) increased by 54 percent. Although these sectors are important, the
transportation sector is still the largest source of emissions, and changes in
driving habits and vehicle choices can have major impacts on Maine’s total greenhouse gas emissions.

The following indicators do
not address all emissions from the transportation sector. Instead, I considered
only emissions generated through the combustion of motor gasoline (non-diesel
fuel used to power automobiles and light trucks) the largest portion of
transportation emissions. Other sources of CO2 from transportation
include combustion of jet fuel, residual fuel, and distillate fuel (which
includes all diesel from the transportation sector, including military, marine,
and railroad)64. Emissions from the motor gasoline
subcomponent of the transportation sector exceed total emissions from any other
sector (Figure
1). The indicators also focus on this subcomponent
because it is relevant to a greater portion of Maine’s population, as motor gasoline
consumption is more directly related to personal travel.

Indicator 1: Motor Gasoline Consumption in Maine

Maine: 15.7 barrels per person per yearUS: 13.9 barrels per person per year

Figure
3 shows changes in annual motor gasoline consumption
per person in Maine, from 1970 to 2000. I developed
this indicator by dividing a portion of the population in 2000 by the motor
gasoline consumption in Maine during that year. Motor gasoline
consumption data, measured in thousands of barrels per year, was obtained from
the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the US Department of Energy
(USDOE)1. Population data came from the US
Census Bureau’s annual estimate of state populations. I used only the portion
of the population over the age of fifteen to represent the population of Maine that drives7-9. The population over 16 would be a
closer approximation because citizens can obtain driver’s licenses at that age,
but the US Census Bureau only publishes annual population estimates in
five-year age categories.

Average per capita motor gasoline consumption in Maine is 13 percent higher than the
nationwide value. There are several explanations for this difference. First, because
Maine is a rural state, its citizens
face, on average, longer driving distances, including distances to work and
other leisure activities. Second, Maine’s small population and small urban
population (relative to urban populations in other states and the US as a whole) make large-scale public
transportation less cost-effective. Also, Maine’s weather, marked by more snow and
ice than most of the US, induces a greater share of the
population to choose light trucks or sturdier, less fuel efficient cars, as
their primary vehicles. Each of these explanations will be explored further in
the indicators that follow.

Consumption of motor gasoline by volume from the
transportation sector is used as a proxy for emissions of carbon dioxide from
this source, since no long-term comprehensive inventory of greenhouse gas
emissions at the state level yet exists. Fuel consumption data obtained from
EIA, on the other hand, stretches back as early as 1960. Fuel consumption is a
good approximation of carbon dioxide emissions from this sector because any
fuel consumed by vehicles will release carbon dioxide emissions related to the
carbon content of that fuel. Although the carbon content of motor gasoline
varies from year to year, this variation is small enough to make little
difference in the amount of carbon dioxide emitted for each barrel of fuel
consumed65.

From 1960 to 2000, total motor
gasoline consumption in Maine nearly doubled (Figure 4). Consumption did not increase uniformly, however, as
consumption in from 1979 to 1980 witnessed a sudden drop, while nearly ten
years later consumption rose to a short-lived peak. This non-uniformity results
from national and world events that affected the price of oil (motor gasoline
is a derivative of oil). One major oil shock occurred in 1973, as OPEC nations
cut supplies to the US and other Western nations. Fuel
consumption in Maine did not immediately respond to this
shock, however. In the short run, people are less likely to change their
driving habits or switch to more fuel efficient vehicles. Consequently, people
paid a higher price to maintain their transportation activities, but as time
passed, and more fuel efficient vehicles emerged, fuel consumption decreased
dramatically.

Motor gasoline consumption per
capita increased by only three percent between 1970 and 2000 (Figure 3). In the 1980s and 1990s, however, motor gasoline
consumption per capita was as low as 17 percent below that of 2000 in the
1980s, and 9 percent below motor gasoline consumption per capita of 2000 in the
1990s. Two explanations for the similarity of the early value of the indicator
and the current value of the indicator are changes in fuel efficiency and
changes in total travel. Since the 1970s, fuel efficiency in the US has
improved dramatically for all vehicles; fuel efficiency in Maine, has almost
certainly followed that trend27. Although fuel efficiency is much higher
now than in 1970, miles traveled (which will be examined later) have increased
considerably.

Indicator 2: Vehicles in Maine

Maine: 1.69 vehicles per householdUS: 1.72 vehicles per
household

The second indicator measures
vehicles registered in Maine as a function of the number of households.
The US Census Bureau’s Census Transportation Planning Package (CTTP) calculates
this value based on the number of households in the state, obtained from the
2000 Census, and the number of registered vehicles, obtained from the Maine
Department of Transportation (MEDOT)6. In contrast to the previous
indicator, the basic unit of comparison is the household, rather than total
population. Generally, households own vehicles, so changes in the number of
households will change the total number of vehicles registered.

Households in Maine on average own only two percent fewer
vehicles than households nationally. One explanation for the slightly smaller
value for Maine relates to income. Income (measured
in Gross State Product per capita) is smaller in Maine than in the US by 23
percent66. A lower average income for Maine likely means that citizens in Maine cannot buy as many vehicles as the
average US citizen. On the other hand, one
might expect a higher value for Maine as less public transportation
options are available than in the US as a whole.

Between 1960 and 1973 (the
year in which the oil shock occurred), motor gasoline consumption correlated
closely with the number of registered vehicles (Figure 5). The vehicles people
drove mostly had similar fuel efficiencies. As people owned more vehicles,
fuel consumption increased at a constant rate. After 1973, a weaker correlation
exists. People switched to more fuel efficient vehicles, but the switch was
not uniform. Since then, the range of fuel efficiency for vehicles in the
US is broader63. Consequently, vehicle registration
data alone cannot explain the relationship between vehicles and motor gasoline
consumption in Maine between 1974 and 2000. The increasing
popularity of less fuel efficient pickup trucks and SUVs in the 1990s and
2000s throughout the US further complicates this relationship.

In Maine, truck registrations increased
relative to automobile registrations from 1985 to 2000, reflecting the
nationwide popularity of sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and pickup trucks (Figure 6). Before 1985, personal passenger vans, mini-vans,
and utility-type vehicles were classified as automobiles. From 1985 onwards,
these vehicles classified as trucks. Vehicles currently classified as trucks
(particularly SUVs and mini-vans) used by individuals in a non-commercial or
non-industrial fashion did not become widely used until after 1985. Although
vehicles registered in Maine continue to be predominately
automobiles, trucks have increased as a proportion of total vehicles since 1985,
while automobiles registrations have slightly decreased. In 1985, trucks
represented 30 percent of vehicle registrations; by 2000 this had increased to 40
percent.

The increasing popularity of trucks
relative to automobiles has received considerable attention from policymakers
in Maine and elsewhere. Policies proposed in
Maine and elsewhere to cut greenhouse gas
emissions mandate more fuel efficient vehicles. Less fuel efficient vehicles
are now more popular relative to vehicles with greater fuel efficiency than
they were in 1985. Consequently, fuel use is greater than it would have been
had trucks maintained their smaller relative popularity. On the other hand,
policymakers should not overstate the importance of this trend. The next
indicator shows that fuel efficiency is not the only major driver of increasing
motor gasoline consumption in Maine.

Indicator 3: Travel in Maine

Maine: 13,736 miles per person per yearUS: 12,433 miles per person per year

The third indicator measures total
travel in Maine, in annual vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) per capita. Vehicle miles traveled are the total miles traveled by every
vehicle in the state for a given period of time. I obtained these data from the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) of the US Department of Transportation
(USDOT)2. As in Indicator 1, the portion of
the population I used includes only individuals over the age of fifteen.

The rise in VMT in the 1980s (Figure 7) partly explains the rise in fuel consumption during
this period. Total vehicle miles traveled increased throughout the period for
which data are available (1970-2000), but witnessed its fastest increase
between 1983 and 1989, when total miles traveled increased by 54 percent in
just six years2. This period coincided with the
same years that total fuel consumption witnessed a significant increase.

As with overall fuel consumption, VMT per capita in Maine is higher than that of the US. As noted above, the rural
character of Maine requires people to drive further on
average. Large scale public transportation does not exist in Maine, so most citizens have no other
option but to drive to work. Maine’s higher VMT per over-fifteen capita
might also relate to the importance of tourism in the state. Thousands of
tourists drive long distances in Maine to reach out of the way places such
as AcadiaNational
Park, BaxterState Park, or Sugarloaf USA. Vehicle miles
traveled data do not differentiate between residents and visitors, so part of
the increase in travel reflects increases in the number of visitors.

Total travel is quickly becoming a significant driver for
fuel consumption in Maine. While fuel consumption per capita
increased very little from 1970 to 2000, VMT per capita increased by 81 percent
in this period (Figure
7). This indicator is still increasing, so over time it
will likely have a greater effect on overall fuel consumption.

Significant variations in vehicle
miles traveled within the state have still greater implications for overall
fuel consumption (and hence contribution to climate change
from this sector). I obtained countywide vehicle miles traveled data from the Maine
Department of Transportation and annual population estimates for each county
from the US Census Bureau. The age category for countywide includes people over
sixteen (rather than over fifteen) years of age population (

). As a result, VMT per capita
indicators for each county are lower than the corresponding indicator presented
at the state and national level above.

Table 1 and Figure 8 show that Maine’s larger counties tend to have high
vehicle miles traveled per capita. As with Maine itself, larger, more rural areas
such as Aroostook, Washington, or Somerset counties require longer distances to
get from place to place. For their size, other counties also have large values
as well. Cumberland, Sagadahoc, and York have high values relative to their
size. This is even more important than the larger values for Maine’s larger, rural counties, as Maine’s population shifts out of these
areas into the southern counties.

Policymakers in Maine and throughout the nation have
generally avoided regulating vehicle miles traveled. The freedom to travel is
regarded by many as a freedom not to be meddled with. Evidence in Maine shows, however, that closer
attention should be paid to vehicle miles traveled, as it has increased
dramatically in recent years, and continues to increase. Similarly, if places
such as Cumberland or YorkCounty have high levels of VMT per capita,
and large populations, then incentives for public transportation or carpooling
should be provided.

Indicator 4: “Drive Alone” Rates

Maine: 80.0%
drive aloneUS: 76.31% drive
alone

The percentage of the workforce that
drives to work alone (the “drive alone rate”) reflects culture and attitudes as
well as incentives and disincentives present or not present for carpooling. I
obtained these values from the National Household Travel Survey of the USDOT’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), and it provides
some insight into vehicle miles traveled in Maine examined in Indicator 33.

“Drive alone” rates increased everywhere in the US between 1990 and 2000, including in
Maine. During the same period, the state
witnessed an increase in vehicle miles traveled as well, although not as large
as in the previous decade. Since more people are driving alone in Maine than in the US as whole, total miles traveled per
person are consequently larger in Maine. In 2000, New York had the lowest percentage of
commuters driving alone (after the District of Columbia), and Alabama had the highest. Of the fifty
states, Maine had the nineteenth highest “drive alone” rate.

Incentives can influence driving rates. The Capitol building
in Augusta is an excellent example of such a
policy device – better parking spots are offered to government workers that
carpool. In New York, public transportation has likely
kept New York’s drive alone rates low, but incentives for carpooling and
disincentives for driving have also probably played a role. While public
transportation on a scale equivalent to New York’s is impossible in Maine, incentives for carpooling should
be explored as a policy option. Disincentives, such as traffic jams or low
availability of parking are not appropriate policy measures. Where
disincentives already exist, however, the state should consider how removal of
these disincentives might lead to more vehicle miles traveled and hence more
fuel consumption in the state. For example, the widening of I-95 in southern Maine will reduce congestion on that
primary artery of the state, therefore making the costs of driving to work
alone lower.

Policy Recommendations

In order for Maine to effectively
address its contribution to global climate change, serious policy measures are
needed to address Maine’s rising emissions of carbon dioxide from the transportation
sector, particularly the motor gasoline portion of that sector, which is mainly
related to personal and business transportation. These emissions make up the
largest portion of Maine’s carbon dioxide emissions from
fossil fuel combustion. From an examination of motor gasoline consumed in the
state, it is clear that these emissions are rising, both in total and per
capita. Consequently, policymakers should address all drivers of these
emissions.

Emissions standards for vehicles,
currently the most strongly advocated policy response to Maine’s rising carbon emissions, should
not be the only type of policy used to address these emissions. While evidence
shows that purchases of trucks are on the rise in Maine, fuel efficiency data on such a
scale is unavailable. If anything the data above only understates the potential
for emissions reductions possible in Maine through fuel efficiency gains. Although
emissions reductions may be significant from these proposed policies, they can
only carry the state to a certain point, as factors other than the types of
vehicles driven in Maine also play an important role in
determining Maine’s emissions from this sector. From
a broader perspective, however, if enough states act as Maine might in requiring the same progressive
emissions standards that California will soon require, the necessary
response by automakers might have positive implications that will stretch
across the nation.

Any gains Maine makes through requiring vehicles to
emit less greenhouse gases may be offset by the continued increase in total and
per capita vehicle miles traveled within the state. Although miles traveled per
capita in Maine will likely remain larger than
other states, as Maine is a rural state, the increasing
trend in per capita miles traveled should be reversed. A large percent of Maine workers drive to work alone. In
response, policymakers should stress incentives for carpooling or public
transportation. Preferential parking for ridesharing at state government
buildings is an excellent start, but if businesses have no incentives for
following the government’s lead, this incentive will have a smaller impact. Park
and ride programs near Maine’s urban centers, particularly Portland, if made significantly more
affordable than driving alone to work any day, could encourage fewer workers to
drive alone in all businesses. Regardless of the method, Maine must consider growth in total
travel within the state if its contribution to climate change is to be reduced.
Emissions reductions in the transportation sector should be coupled with
reductions in the other major sectors as well.

7.Census
Bureau. Estimates of the Population of States by Age, Sex, and Race: 1970-1979.
http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/pre-1980/e7080sta.txtaccessed 11/05/04 (1980).

8.Census
Bureau. Resident Population of States, By 5-Year Age Groups and Sex, 1980-1990.
http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/1980s/s5yr8090.txtaccessed 12/08/04 (1995).

9.Census
Bureau. Resident Population Estimates of the United States by Age and Sex:
April 1, 1990 to July 1, 1999, with Short-Term Projection to November 1, 2000. http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/1990s/nat-agesex.txtaccessed 12/08/04 (2001).